FAMILY ASSESSMENT AND CASE PLANNING CFOP 170-9

OFFICE OF CHILD WELFARESEPTEMBER 2016

Learning Objectives Participants will:

Identify practice imperatives

Understand major changes from Practice Guidelines

Related Procedural Content

CFOP 170-5 CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS

CFOP 170-2 COMPLETING HOTLINE INTAKE ASSESSMENT

CFOP 170-4 CHILD MALTREATMENT INDEXCFOP 170-3 CRIMINAL JUSTICE INFORMATION SERVICES

CFOP 170-7 DEVELOP AND MANAGE SAFETY PLANS

CFOP 170-9 FAMILY ASSESSMENT AND CASE PLANNING

CHAPTER 2, CORE SAFETY CONCEPTS

Where can I locate the operating procedures?

3 Locations:DCF Intranet Page

DCF Internet Page

Center for Child Welfare website

Overview of important changes

Family Engagement Standards Chapter 1, Standards for Preparing for Family EngagementChapter 2, Standards for Initial Family EngagementChapter 3, Assessment of Child FunctioningChapter 4, Family Engagement Standards for Exploration

Difficulty Engaging the ParentsChapter 5, Case Planning to Support Family ChangeChapter 6, Evaluating Family Progress

Chapter 9, Safe Case Closure

Practice Imperatives

Family engagement

Sufficient information gathering and analysis

Supervisor Consultations

FSFN Documentation

Pre-Service Communications Lab 1.1.5

Policy vs. Practice

Chapter 1, Standards for Preparing for Family EngagementParagraph 1-2. Preparation Prior to Case Transfer.

FFA-Investigation

Analysis of danger threats

Safety Analysis

Safety Plan

Conditions for Return

Chapter 1, Standards for Preparing for Family EngagementParagraph 1-3. Preparation Activities after Case Transfer.

Case history

FFA-I and Safety Plan

Special case dynamics and expertise

Identify information gaps

Chapter 2, Standards for Initial Family EngagementParagraph 2-3. During On-going Case Management

Safety plan discussion

General information about family

Role and responsibilities of case manager

Family feedback past experiences

Chapter 3, Assessment of Child FunctioningParagraph 2-3. During On-going Case Management

Child Functioning

Child Strengths & Needs

Chapter 3, Assessment of Child FunctioningCFOP 170-1, Appendix 1, Child Development Stages Matrix

Chapter 4, Family Engagement Standards for ExplorationParagraph 2-3. During On-going Case Management

Adult Functioning & Parenting

Family Goal & Change Strategies

Chapter 4, Family Engagement Standards for Exploration4.2.b. Other Parent Home Assessment

When a child requires an out-of-home safety plan, AND only the removal parent/legal guardian has been found responsible for the unsafe child, an OPHA per requirements in CFOP 170-7, Chapter 5 must be completed.

Chapter 5, Case Planning to Support Family Change5-3. Co-Constructing a Case Plan with Parent(s) and Child(ren)

Child Functioning

Child Strengths & Needs

Adult Functioning & Parenting

Family Goal & Change Strategies

Case Planning

Chapter 6, Evaluating Family Progress

Child Functioning

Child Strengths & Needs

Adult Functioning & Parenting

Family Goal & Change Strategies

Case Planning:• Outcome Evaluation

• Tasks & Services

Appendix A: Progress Evaluation Facilitative Objectives

Chapter 6, Evaluating Family Progress6-2. Purposeful Case Management Contacts

Child

Parent(s)

Non-maltreating parent

Out of county services worker

Providers

6-2. Purposeful Contacts. d. Monitoring Activities

1. Child safety and well-being

2. Status of caregiver protective capacities

3. Safety analysis

Chapter 6, Evaluating Family Progress6-2. When New Progress Update is Required.

Child removal/out-of-home safety plan

Birth or death of sibling

New household member

Change to unsupervised visitation

Prior to implementation of reunification

Before recommendation for case closure

Appendix A to CFOP 170-7, Safety Planning Analysis

There is a reasonable understanding of how the family operates/manages on a routine basis so that safety services can effectively target and control Impending Danger when and how the Impending Danger occurs.

The day to day dynamics of the home situation and interaction among family members has a reasonable level of reliability.

There is a reasonable level of reliability that inhabitants, circumstances won’t change without reasonable notice.

Justification for Why an In-Home Safety Plan could NOT be Used Because of the Home Environment:

Chaotic home environment; disruptive; unpredictable; no routine and organization; numbers of people or families in-home creating a lack of stability; or other home environment issues which compromise use of safety service providers;

Someone resides in the home who is directly threatening to the child; Unknown or questionable people (who could be a danger to a child or disrupt the in-home

safety plan) have access to the household at any given time; Individuals who may be residing off and on in the home but who cannot be confirmed

and/or accounted for because they have been avoiding contact; A child’s injury has not been explained at the conclusion of the FFA and there is firm

belief that someone in the home or associated with the home had opportunity and something to do with the injury. [A qualification with respect to unexplained injuries and in-home safety plan is that consideration must be given to whether a protective adult can be available to the child at all times (e.g., caregivers, other children, other family members, others associated with the family.)]

There is no apparent structure or routine in the household that can be established on a day to day basis, and therefore an in-home safety plan cannot be developed to accommodate the inconsistency;

In-home safety services cannot sufficiently target specific days and times when Impending Danger threats may become active, because negative conditions associated with Impending Danger are pervasive with no predictability;

The interactions among family members are so unpredictable, chaotic and/or dangerous that in-home safety services cannot sufficiently control and manage behaviors on a consistent basis;

Violence in the household is unchecked and/or fighting among family members/others in the household is pervasive OR totally unpredictable and therefore uncontrollable, and in-home safety services cannot sufficiently control the behavior OR there is a belief that safety service providers would not be safe;

A child is extremely fearful of the home situation or people in the home or frequenting the home and this fear can be observed and attached to its source.

Question #3:

Safety services are available at a sufficient level and to the degree necessary in order to manage the way in which impending danger is manifested in the home.

involved [e.g. participating in the case plan], and in-home safety services can sufficiently manage behavior [describe specifically what behavior must be managed] that continues to exist;

Caregivers are open to discussing the circumstances surrounding the child’s injury, they are cooperative and actively engaged in intervention, and interactions between caregivers and the child indicate strong attachment, caregivers and are demonstrating progress toward achievement of treatment plan goals.

Justification for Why an In-Home Safety Plan could NOT be Used:

Caregiver is argumentative and confrontational during discussions regarding the use of a safety plan;

Caregiver demonstrates signs of fake cooperation; Caregiver has failed to cooperate with previous safety plans that resulted in children

being unsafe; Caregiver pushes back and/or is not accepting when confronted with the realities of what

an in-home safety plan would involve; Caregiver is openly and assertively hostile regarding the use of an in-home safety plan; Caregiver assertively justifies behavior and openly and adamantly rejects the need for a

safety plan; Caregiver refuses access and/or only interacts minimally with the agency to avoid

trouble; Caregiver expresses no willingness to do anything for the child; Caregiver expresses a desire to hurt the child and does not want the child around; Caregiver does not want to care for the child and feels no attachment; Caregiver thinks that he or she may or will hurt the child and requests placement.

Question #2: The home environment is calm and consistent enough for an in-home safety plan to be implemented and for safety service providers to be in the home safely. Calm and consistent refers to the environment, its’ routine, how constant and consistent it is, its predictability to be the same from day-to-day. The environment must accommodate plans, schedules, and services and be non-threatening to those participating in the Safety Plan. Justification for Use of an In-Home Safety Plan Related to the Home Environment:

The home environment circumstances are consistent enough to be amenable to being organized, and can be sufficiently controlled and managed by in-home safety services.

While a family may experience a crisis from time to time, these do no disrupt in-home safety services and it is reasonable to expect that the in-home safety services can support crisis resolution.

Overall home environment is consistent and predictable enough to accommodate In-home safety services at the required level (as planned); assure the personal safety of safety service providers; and allow and assure that safety services occur as planned.

Caregiver or other family member behavior and emotions are not aggravated,

Safety Planning Analysis Developed by ACTION for Child Protection, Inc. In-Service Training as part of in-service training on “Developing Safety Plans” under DCF Contract # LJ949.

The purpose of this process is to analyze Impending Danger, family functioning, and family and community resources in order to produce a sufficient Safety Plan. This analysis depends on having collected sufficient pertinent, relevant information. This analysis occurs as a result of a mental and interpersonal process between caregivers, a family, a child welfare professional, a supervisor, family supports, and other people resources. The intention is to arrive at a decision regarding the most appropriate and least restrictive means for controlling and managing identified Impending Danger Threats and therefore assuring child safety. There are several essential analysis questions that must be explored in order for investigators or case managers to have heightened confidence in the sufficiency of the Safety Plan. The Safety Plan Analysis questions are as follows:

Question #1: The parents/legal guardians are willing for an in-home safety plan to be developed and implemented and have demonstrated that they will cooperate with all identified safety service providers. Willing to accept and cooperate refers to the most basic level of agreement to allow a Safety Plan to be implemented in the home and to participate according to agreed assignments. Caregivers do not have to agree that a Safety Plan is the right thing nor are they required liking the plan; plans are not negotiable in regards to the effectuation of the plan. Justification for Use of an In-home Safety Plan:

Caregiver agrees to and goes along with an in-home safety plan; Caregiver has demonstrated willingness and cooperation in previous safety plans; Caregiver understands what is required to implement an in-home safety plan and agrees

to allow others into the home at the level required; Caregiver avoids interfering with the in-home safety plan generally and safety service

providers specifically; Caregiver is open to exploring in-home safety options; Caregiver can participate in discussions about child safety, safety management, and in-

home safety planning; Caregiver does not reject or avoid involvement with the CPS; Caregiver is willing to consider what it would take to keep the child in the home; Caregiver is believable when communicating a willingness for cooperating with an in-

home safety plan; Caregiver is open to the parameters of an in-home safety plan, arrangements and

schedules, and safety service providers; Caregiver identifies him/herself as a primary caregiver for a child; Caregiver demonstrates an investment in having the child remain in the home;

Caregiver [name] acknowledges the needed to become invested in intervention [can identify specifics such as services, schedules, etc.] and is actively taking steps to become positively

Appendix B to CFOP 170-7, Conditions for Return

All individuals residing in the home are known to the agency, cooperative and open to intervention;

There is an increased understanding of how Impending Danger [described negative condition that must be better understood] is manifested on a day to day basis, and there is a judgment that in-home safety services can be put into place at the times and level of effort required to assure child safety;

There is an understanding regarding when Impending Danger is more likely to become active and in-home safety services can be put into place at the times and level of effort required to sufficiently control and manage out of control emotions, perceptions and/or behavior [describe specifically what would need to be controlled].

Question #3: Safety services are available at a sufficient level and to the degree necessary in order to manage the way in which impending danger is manifested in the home. Safety Management Services are dependent upon the identified impending danger threat. Available refers to services that exist in sufficient amount. Access refers to time and location. Accessible services are those that are close enough to the family to be applied and can be implemented immediately. Conditions for Return and Use of an In-Home Safety Plan: CFR statements associated with the sufficiency of resources should reflect what would need to exist in comparison to what was determined to be the justification for an out-of-home safety plan. See the previous examples related to the justification for an in-home safety plan as a reference point for considering possible conditions for return related to sufficient resources. Examples:

There are sufficient and suitable safety service resources at the level of effort necessary to manage behavior and/or provide social connections and/or provide basic parenting assistance etc. [identify what specific safety service you would need to manage safety in the home].

Question #4:

An in-home safety plan and the use of in-home safety management services can sufficiently manage impending danger without the results of scheduled professional evaluations. This question is concerned with specific knowledge that is needed to understand Impending Danger Threats, caregiver capacity or behavior or family functioning specifically related to Impending Danger Threats. The point here is the absence of such information obviates DCF’s ability to know what is required to manage threats. Evaluations that are concerned with treatment or general information gathering (not specific to Impending Danger Threats) can occur in tandem with In-Home Safety Plans. Conditions for Return and Use of an In-Home Safety Plan: CFR statements associated with a caregiver’s capacity should reflect what would need to be different in comparison to what was determined to be the justification for why an in-home safety plan would be insufficient.

Question #2:

The home environment is calm and consistent enough for an in-home safety plan to be implemented and for safety service providers to be in the home safely. Calm and consistent refers to the environment, it’s routine, how constant and consistent it is, its predictability to be the same from day-to-day. The environment must accommodate plans, schedules, and services and be non-threatening to those participating in the Safety Plan. Conditions for Return and Use of an In-Home Safety Plan: CFR statements associated with the home environment should reflect what would need to be different in comparison to what was determined to require an out-of-home safety plan. Examples:

The home environment is consistent [describe what would be different] enough for in-home safety services to be put into place;

Specific individuals [identify and describe what was problematic about certain people being in the home and threatening to child safety] no longer reside in the home and the caregiver’s [name] commitment to keeping them out of the home is sufficiently supported by in-home safety services;

Caregiver [name or other individual in the home] no longer expresses or behaves in such a way that reasonably will disrupt an in-home safety plan [describe specifically what would be different that was preventing in-home safety plan], expresses acceptance of the in-home safety plan and concern for child; and safety services are sufficient for monitoring and managing caregiver behavior as necessary;

Specific triggers for violence in the home are understood and recognized by caregivers, and in-home safety services can sufficiently monitor and manage behavior to control impulsivity and prevent aggressiveness;

Caregiver [name] acknowledges the need for self-management and is demonstrating evidence of increased impulse control and behavior management, and there is a judgment that in-home safety services can provide sufficient monitoring of family member interactions [describe specific what would be monitored in terms of situations and interactions] and manage behavior [describe what specific behavior must be managed];

Child [name] no longer expresses fear of the home situation; Child [name] no longer expresses fear of being around the caregiver, and in-home safety

services can be a sufficient social connection for the child to monitor his/her feelings and/or emotional reactions;

There is enough of an understanding regarding the home environment, dynamics of family interactions and caregiver functioning that in-home safety services can sufficiently supervise and monitor the situation and/or manage behavior and/or manage stress and/or provide basic parenting assistance [describe specifically what safety services would be necessary];

Caregiver [name] interactions with a child during visitation reveals a positive change in perception and attitude toward the child [describe specifically what change would be necessary to implement an in-home safety plan];

Caregiver [name] has expressed a desire to improve the quality of the relationship with his/her child, and demonstrates enough notable progress toward having a change in perception and more positive interactions with the child that in-home safety services can sufficiently supervise and monitor the situation;

The home environment is reasonably consistent on a day to day basis [describe what minimally reasonably consistent would look like for a particular family];

Conditions for Return (CFR) Developed by ACTION for Child Protection, Inc. In-Service Training as part of in-service training on “Developing Safety Plans” under DCF Contract #LJ949. If at the conclusion of the Family Functioning Assessment-Investigations, the Safety Planning Analysis results in a decision that an out-of-home safety plan is necessary to sufficiently manage child safety, the next immediate activity involves the supervisor and child welfare professional documenting explicitly what would be required in order for an in-home safety plan to be established and the child(ren) returned home. The requirements (i.e., conditions that must exist) in order to return children to their caregivers are directly connected to the specific reasons/ justification from the Safety Planning Analysis as to why an in-home safety plan could not be put into place at the conclusion of the FFA and/or maintained as a part of ongoing safety management. These “condition” for return statements are intended to delineate what is required in the home environment and of caregivers to be able to step down the level of intrusiveness for safety management and implement an in-home safety plan.

Question #1: The parents/legal guardians are willing for an in-home safety plan to be developed and implemented and have demonstrated that they will cooperate with all identified safety service providers. Willing to accept and cooperate refers to the most basic level of agreement to allow a Safety Plan to be implemented in the home and to participate according to agreed assignments. Caregivers do not have to agree that a Safety Plan is the right thing nor are they required liking the plan; plans are not negotiable in regards to the effectuation of the plan. Conditions for Return and Use of an In-Home Safety Plan: CFR statements associated with a caregiver’s lack of acceptance and willingness to participate in developing an in-home safety plan should reflect what would be different in comparison to what was determined to be the justification for why an in-home safety plan could not be used. Examples:

Caregiver [name] is open to having candid discussion about the reason for a safety plan and what the safety plan would involve regarding child [name] safety and the need for a safety plan;

Caregiver [name] expresses genuine remorse about [specific maltreatment] toward child [name] and is willing to discuss the need for a safety plan;

Caregiver [name] expresses a genuine interest in doing what is necessary to have the child [name] return to the home;

Caregiver [name] is willing to allow for safety services in the home and demonstrates openness to cooperate with whatever level of involvement from safety service providers is required to assure child safety;

Caregiver can talk about how he/she felt before when not being willing to cooperate with an in-home safety plan, and why/how he/she feels different.

Chapter 9, Safe Case Closure9-2. Requirements for Closure

a. Safety Plan no longer necessary and permanency goal/legal custody achieved

b. If child is determined to be not safe:1) All reasonable efforts to engage the parent(s) have been made AND2) Staffing with CLS and consensus reached.

c. Progress Update completed that justifies case closure.

d. Court ordered cases have copy of court order terminating supervision.

Thank you for participating!

If you have any questions, please forward to Alissa.Cross@myflfamilies.com

Florida Center for Child Welfarecentersupport@usf.edu